Perception: We've all gone blind!

[Surgoshan]

I think the best part is the clever nickname Thir gave him.

 

[silentounce]

I think the best part is the clever nickname Thir gave him.

What, you're going to make me ask for it?

 

[Surgoshan]

It's the first part of his name.

 

[IanArgent]

Wow, that comment just gave me an epiphany. I now realize a lot of the "thought" that went behind the designing of this system. This system was designed with the designers in mind, not the DMs who know their players. A lot of you will probably like this, but I don't, and I'm sure a lot of the people that are having the same issues that I am with the changes won't. Wow, everything is so clear now.

I no longer have the time I did in college. I'm working 9-10 hour days (at a job I love, don't get me wrong, and I am well-paid on top of it) plus commute time. This means it is vital to me that the system be built for the "designers". They have no way of knowing what my party is like. But in 4E, they can assume a much smaller range of mechanical variability. This is a Good Thing (tm). When the designers set up a skill challenge, they can set the DC for an average skill check at 13+1/2 level and it will "just work" for the vast majority of groups. Even if no character in the group has training in that skill, they have a roughly 50/50 shot of making the check; without it being a stupidly easy task for a character optimized for the task.

That was my epiphany months ago when the skill system rumors first came up. This is the obvious example - but the entire system shows that paradigm. The adventure designer doesn't need to know anything about the party other than their level; and only has to make one assumption - that the party consists of 5 PCs with all 4 roles covered. And even then, the way encounter design is now, a GM can scale the adventure by multiplying the XP "budget" for the encounter by x/5 (where x is the number of PCs in his party); and by encouraging smaller groups to follow the guidelines for a "less than 4" party in the DMG.

There's a doubled paradigm in 4E design. "is it fun?" and "Does it decrease the DM's workload?" (which is really a corollary of the first statement specifically for the DM). I don't need help coming up with fluff - I do that in my head every day. Sometimes I even write it down on a PDA that I alway shave with me (a notepad will work too). But turning that fluff into fair mechanics is very hard in 3.5Ed. I've had adventures run out of Dungeon go pear-shaped on my players because the designers made an assumption about my party that was not true at all, and the results were killer.

 

[Ahglock]

I will say, considering its a role based game the wizard probably should have had it on his spell list. The entire control role drops massively in usefulness if they don't see the enemy coming.

Most of the other roles do fine, the enemy gets close, you lose a round, you pound on them. The controller, you don't see them, they get close, and you slow them which has no effect since they are on top of you.

It might not be thematically appropriate, but it is very role appropriate.

 

[IanArgent]

I will say, considering its a role based game the wizard probably should have had it on his spell list. The entire control role drops massively in usefulness if they don't see the enemy coming.

Most of the other roles do fine, the enemy gets close, you lose a round, you pound on them. The controller, you don't see them, they get close, and you slow them which has no effect since they are on top of you.

It might not be thematically appropriate, but it is very role appropriate.

Party dependence. The wizard is (nominally) supposed to be alerted to the enemy by someone with the skill; and the defender(s) hold the enemy off him while he gets himself together.